Veronica Mwondela, the landlord, was told by her letting agent, Saint Property Services, in May 2018 that the property in the Netherfield area of Nottingham did not require a licence.
The letting agents suggested that the property was not in an area of selective licensing, and so no licence was required. Mwondela lives in Essex and argued that she was not familiar with the different borough boundaries of Nottingham.
The Property Tribunal determined that she had nonetheless committed an offence against the Housing Act 2004, which would have meant a maximum repayment of a year’s rent, which would have been £5,370.
This was the amount being claimed by the tenant, Tamara Henry, who had brought the case. She also alleged a host of other failings by the landlord, including taking too long to address necessary repairs and threatening behaviour over the non-payment of rent.
Misled by agent “through error”
However, the Tribunal noted that Mwondela had been misled “albeit most probably through error” by her letting agent, and concluded that she was not the sort of ‘rogue landlord’ targeted by the legislation.
In its judgement, the Tribunal also dismissed the additional allegations, stating: “There is no evidence that, with the exception of the door entry system, the respondent failed to remedy any issues notified to her or that she delayed unreasonably in doing so. All properties require some attention or maintenance at some point.”
As a result, it decided to discount the rent repayment by 90%, meaning a repayment of £537.
Mwondela dispensed with the services of Saint Property Services back in 2020.
